Why didn't the Lord do a show for King Herod to demonstrate His authority? Jesus never did a showy or biggie miracle to impress people, in fact, He stated that the only "sign" that evil generation would get was the one of Jonah! The miracles of the Lord are consistent with His teachings and not meant to be attention-getting, or to force belief, though they do elicit faith in some--but in others evoke only skepticism. If you took out the miracles of the Lord in the Bible, or if He had never done any, He would've only been a footnote in history, and we would've only heard of a humble teacher or martyr. But the "signs" He did were for a good reason--to be an illustration of His deity in some dimension (e.g., raising the dead to show He is the life, or feeding the hungry to show He is the bread of life).
In other religions, you don't have skeptics or doubters present to witness the event, but Jesus feels free to do them in the open, so that no one can deny them--even the Pharisees admitted that, if He had gone on, the whole world would believe in Him. There is a vast difference in His miracles; if you take the miracles out of other faiths, they remain basically intact in their teachings, but not so with Christianity. What Jesus knew was that faith produces miracles and not vice versa. You cannot force someone to believe by a miracle! Jesus refused to oblige the mockers at His crucifixion who demanded that He get off the cross--He could've done it, but we'd all be lost. The Scriptures point out in John 12:37 and Ps. 78:32 that though God performs miracles the people "would not" believe--note that it doesn't say "could not."
Miracles don't give faith, but only a desire for more miracles--that's why God refrains Himself. God is the cause of all events, and miracles are just unusual ones caused by Him; if miracles happened all the time we'd call them "regulars." Miracles can evoke faith in the believing, but skepticism in others. The question of whether miracles can occur is not scientific, because it's out of its domain, but is a philosophical question.
Ultimately, it depends upon whether God exists. You cannot disprove God because that would be a universal negative, and all philosophers know you cannot prove a universal negative--like the fact that there are no little green men or Earth-like planets in the entire cosmos; you would have to know all and be everywhere, or be God yourself! You can choose not to believe due to lack of evidence, but you cannot disprove.
Jesus' miracles were different in that they were not helter-skelter, for prestige, money, or power; He never used His powers for personal advantage, gain, or relief. None of them were capricious, nor fantastic, so as to force faith. Also, His miracles were unique, in that they proved and illustrated lessons. Jesus is the Lawgiver and has the authority to overrule His own laws of nature. The miracle of miracles, of course, was His resurrection, and this is the ultimate verification of His power of death, hell, and Satan, and the proof that He's the Son of God in the flesh.
For this event, Luke writes, "there are many infallible proofs" (cf. Acts 1:3). What we need to determine, is whether the records of His resurrection are historically reliable and test the veracity of the witnesses (who were willing to lay down their lives for their testimony)--you will find that the evidence would stand up in a court of law verifying His resurrection as fact by an impartial jury. If the resurrection is true, it's the most fantastic and wonderful fact of history, if not, it's the cruelest hoax perpetrated on mankind. Soli Deo Gloria!
In other religions, you don't have skeptics or doubters present to witness the event, but Jesus feels free to do them in the open, so that no one can deny them--even the Pharisees admitted that, if He had gone on, the whole world would believe in Him. There is a vast difference in His miracles; if you take the miracles out of other faiths, they remain basically intact in their teachings, but not so with Christianity. What Jesus knew was that faith produces miracles and not vice versa. You cannot force someone to believe by a miracle! Jesus refused to oblige the mockers at His crucifixion who demanded that He get off the cross--He could've done it, but we'd all be lost. The Scriptures point out in John 12:37 and Ps. 78:32 that though God performs miracles the people "would not" believe--note that it doesn't say "could not."
Miracles don't give faith, but only a desire for more miracles--that's why God refrains Himself. God is the cause of all events, and miracles are just unusual ones caused by Him; if miracles happened all the time we'd call them "regulars." Miracles can evoke faith in the believing, but skepticism in others. The question of whether miracles can occur is not scientific, because it's out of its domain, but is a philosophical question.
Ultimately, it depends upon whether God exists. You cannot disprove God because that would be a universal negative, and all philosophers know you cannot prove a universal negative--like the fact that there are no little green men or Earth-like planets in the entire cosmos; you would have to know all and be everywhere, or be God yourself! You can choose not to believe due to lack of evidence, but you cannot disprove.
Jesus' miracles were different in that they were not helter-skelter, for prestige, money, or power; He never used His powers for personal advantage, gain, or relief. None of them were capricious, nor fantastic, so as to force faith. Also, His miracles were unique, in that they proved and illustrated lessons. Jesus is the Lawgiver and has the authority to overrule His own laws of nature. The miracle of miracles, of course, was His resurrection, and this is the ultimate verification of His power of death, hell, and Satan, and the proof that He's the Son of God in the flesh.
For this event, Luke writes, "there are many infallible proofs" (cf. Acts 1:3). What we need to determine, is whether the records of His resurrection are historically reliable and test the veracity of the witnesses (who were willing to lay down their lives for their testimony)--you will find that the evidence would stand up in a court of law verifying His resurrection as fact by an impartial jury. If the resurrection is true, it's the most fantastic and wonderful fact of history, if not, it's the cruelest hoax perpetrated on mankind. Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment